Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, 51 years ago today, our Nation's highest Court issued a ruling that protected a woman's right to make the most fundamental choice in her life. Roe v. Wade enshrined into law that in America, women would have legal autonomy over their own bodies.

As a result of the constitutional protections in Roe, America's women took a giant step forward toward gender equity: being afforded the right to choose whether, when, and how to start a family.

But after nearly 50 years of progress, in June 2022, this Supreme Court overruled Roe in its Dobbs v. Women's Health Organization ruling, taking women's rights back half a century.

The Dobbs decision was a win for extreme conservative activists who waged a relentless campaign to capture the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade, but it was a tragic loss for women in America.

Take the case of Kate Cox, a married woman, mother of two, from Texas. Kate was elated to learn that she was pregnant with her third child. However, tests revealed that her baby had trisomy 18, a genetic condition that is almost always fatal very soon after birth. The prognosis was grim. Moreover, carrying the child could damage Kate's future fertility for another child.

Kate and her husband made one of the hardest decisions. They made the decision to go forward with an abortion. But in Texas where they live, it is illegal in nearly all circumstances. The Cox family hoped that the exception in Texas law for the life and health of the mother would allow her to terminate this ill-fated pregnancy.

Shockingly, it did not. Although a State court judge initially ruled that Kate could obtain an emergency abortion, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton immediately took legal steps to block Kate from receiving the care that she needed.

In addition to appealing the trial court's decision to the Texas Supreme Court, Attorney General Paxton sent a letter to hospitals and doctors, warning them that anyone involved in performing an abortion for Kate would face civil and criminal liability.

The Texas Supreme Court, controlled by Republicans, joined in the rule against Kate. She was forced to leave her home State and go across State lines to terminate the pregnancy.

Let's take the case of Brittany Watts, a 34-year-old from Ohio. Brittany was arrested after miscarrying in her bathroom. Thankfully, just 2 weeks ago, a grand jury with empathy, common sense, and reason declined to indict her, understanding that miscarriages are devastating and extremely common, a pregnancy outcome that women should not be punished for.

But in a post-Roe America, these are the horrific situations that women and the doctors who provide them care often face. Republican politicians in States like Texas and Ohio have made it clear they do not trust the judgment of women and their families in these matters.

But even amidst this devastation unleashed by Dobbs, Democrats continue to fight for women. In our home State of Illinois, we have become an oasis for women in an area that otherwise would be left without abortion options. New data shows the number of women traveling to our State of Illinois for abortions rose nearly 50 percent in 2022, and we experienced the largest increase of any State in the number of patients traveling out of State for abortions last year. Remember, in each and every case, there is the cost and burden of travel as a part of this calculation.

Our commitment to reproductive health has real-world impacts. In June of 2022, Margaret from Cook County, IL, lost her son. She was devastated. But one thing that made the experience less painful was living in a State that respected her right to make healthcare decisions privately with her doctor. Only a week after Margaret lost her son, Roe was overruled, throwing women's bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom in States across the country into real uncertainty but, fortunately, not in Illinois.

Margaret wrote to my office and said:

I cannot stress how awful it was to lose a child I loved so

much, but how glad I was to be in Illinois when this

devastating thing happened.

We are proud to be a State that fights for women. But there are consequences to blue States meeting increased demand for abortion care.

More than 28 million women of reproductive age live in States where abortion is banned, unavailable, or restricted--28 million American women living in those States. When thousands of women are forced to go out of State to get an abortion, it increases wait times for people in blue States, and it puts enormous stress on providers and clinics. Moreover, not every woman is able to afford the trip, find childcare, and take time off to travel to another State. This creates inequities for those who are trying to access safe and legal abortion.

One thing is clear: Dobbs does not stop abortion. In fact, the numbers show us quite the opposite has happened. The data shows that in the year following the Dobbs decision, abortions actually increased nationwide. Moreover, public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans still support abortion rights. And from the States of Kansas to Kentucky, in every State where it has been put on the ballot, abortion and the rights of women to

make these choices remains a winning issue.

Republicans may continue to attack women's rights and freedoms, but these unpopular, dangerous policies will catch up with them.

Let's not be naive. From trying to outlaw medication abortion--even in States where abortion is legal--to challenging a Federal law that requires access to reproductive care in emergencies is a reality.

Antiabortion activists continue trying to chip away at women's reproductive rights and healthcare, and they are not going to stop. That is why we must pass the Women's Health Protection Act, enshrining the woman's right to choose into Federal law. It is the right thing to do.

I urge my colleagues to swiftly stand up for women in this country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last week, we received remarkable news about a milestone in America's healthcare: A record 20 million Americans are now covered by health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

This is a sign of progress as we improve the quality of life and healthcare protections under President Biden.

Having quality, affordable healthcare coverage means having peace of mind if you get a diagnosis, an accident, or if you need access to care and are facing medical debt.

I know this story. I have been there. I was a law student at Georgetown when my wife and I were blessed with the birth of our first child, a baby girl born with a serious medical condition. As a young father without insurance, I can tell you, there is no greater feeling of helplessness.

That is why Democrats have been committed to expanding health insurance to millions more Americans and ensuring it contains protections for patients with preexisting conditions.

But even with these successes, there are serious gaps in America's healthcare system, gaps which are unimaginable until you learn specifically what I mean.

I want to focus on one of them: access to dental care.

I spent the August recess last year visiting small towns in Southern Illinois. I met with the new mayor of Carbondale, IL, Carolin Harvey.

I asked her: OK. You have a U.S. Senator in your office, Mayor. What is your ask? What do you want?

Her answer: pediatric dentistry, of all things. I couldn't imagine that. I thought it would be a sewer line or a street or something for law enforcement--pediatric dentistry. She said: Senator, we just don't have enough dentists for kids in Southern Illinois. In fact, there are 10 rural counties in the State that have only 1 dentist to serve their community. In Lawrence County, there is 1 dentist for 15,000 people. That ratio--a local ratio--is 11 times worse than the national average.

What is the result of a shortage of dentists, particularly for kids? Patients' conditions worsen as they face delays to getting an examination.

My office was recently contacted about a child in Southern Illinois who was found to have tooth decay in her 18-month checkup. The patient is covered by Medicaid, and her parents had a hard time finding a dentist who would even see her.

Imagine this for a minute as I tell you this story, that you are a father or mother of a child who is 18 months old and has tooth decay and pain. After nearly a year, the patient was finally treated for severe tooth decay, erosion of the upper incisor teeth, and a large tooth abscess, but her condition did not improve after multiple rounds of antibiotics so her dentist called around to find a specialist to see her.

They were told by the specialist that ``unfortunately, we have over 200 patients on our [waiting] list, so we really cannot help [her].'' This child is going to have to develop a much worse condition known as facial cellulitis, then she can be sent to an emergency room and then ``we can see her.''

Listen to what I just said. You have a child who is a year and a half old, who has already been treated by a dentist, who has complications, who is trying to find her way back to the dentist and is being told: Sorry. There is a waiting list here of 200 people. Get to the end of the line, and wait.

Perhaps, though, there is a way out. If this child's condition worsens or is complicated, then maybe we can qualify under a new code under Medicaid to finally see her and treat her. In other words, this toddler had to develop deep-tissue infection--putting her at risk of sepsis, jaw damage, and other life-threatening illnesses--to get her decayed teeth pulled.

Imagine that as a parent, would you. Think about that for a minute.

Her dentist called a specialist in a neighboring State. Thankfully, they were able to perform emergency surgery to remove the decayed teeth but not before risking life-threatening illnesses.

That is the reality for people in the United States of America and in the State of Illinois today. That is unacceptable. In fact, it is embarrassing. So what are we going to do about it in Washington, with all our money and all our power?

Thankfully, there is a Federal program that can help. It is called the National Health Service Corps. It provides a scholarship and loan repayment to dental, medical, and mental health providers who work in rural and urban areas in need. It is the primary Federal program intended to build a pipeline of healthcare providers and address shortages such as the one I just described to you. Nationwide, there are 20,000 professionals serving in the National Health Service Corps, treating 21 million patients.

But $310 million in mandatory funding for this program will expire at the end of this month. We cannot allow this to happen. Senator Marco Rubio--a Republican from Florida--and I have a bipartisan measure to extend this program and nearly triple its funding. It is supported by more than 65 leading medical organizations. They know the reality on the ground for poor people in America, particularly in rural areas and urban areas in need.

The Senate HELP Committee passed a major bipartisan package last fall that included significant new funding for this program. I urge my Republican colleagues to join and support it.

But there is a lot more we need to do. For example, in Illinois, only one-quarter of practicing dentists accepts Medicaid. Think about that. Only one-quarter of practicing dentists accepts Medicaid. Since so few dentists take Medicaid patients, it means that kids in Illinois, with private insurance, are six times more likely to get a dental appointment than those who have Medicaid. In other words, if you are poor, that child complaining of a toothache is just going to have to take it. That, unfortunately, in my State and in many States, is reality.

Low reimbursement rates and arbitrary practices by companies that administer dental benefits under Medicaid contribute to this. So I recently sent a letter to the three major insurance providers-- DentaQuest, Avesis, and Envolve--to understand their tactics and their corporate strategies and ensure they are not putting unnecessary barriers up for basic dental treatment.

I am also working with stakeholders to bring in Federal dollars to expand dental residency training programs, fund mobile clinics that drive into rural areas, and expand surgical capacity.

I might just say this as an aside. I am often asked the question: Why in the world do we treat dentistry as anything other than a medical specialty? It certainly is. If you have got a sore

tooth or a decayed tooth or a problem in your mouth, you want help, and you want it now; and you want a professional to provide it. They go through years and years of training. Yet, instead of being treated like a medical specialty like orthopedics or cardio, they are in a different category altogether. It makes no sense.

Today, I am announcing a new bill that I am introducing with Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Our bipartisan legislation will authorize funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to enhance public health activities to improve dental care across America. It will support education, data collection, sealant treatments in schools, water fluoridation efforts, the development of the dental workforce, and community outreach efforts, such as the distribution of toothbrushes--the basics--to new parents and children.

Illinois has not received funding for this important work in nearly 20 years due to a lack of funding. I want to change that. If we improve the health of Americans, especially kids, then we must invest in preventing cavities, tooth decay, and infections. We must also ensure that patients have access to treatment, regardless of their ZIP Codes.

I appreciate the partnership of my colleague Senator Marshall, and I will be working to pass this bipartisan legislation quickly.

I want to say, just in closing, to the mayor, Carolin Harvey of Carbondale, IL, that you shocked me when you suggested pediatric dentistry was your ask. It told me a lot about you, your heart, and your caring for kids. Now that we know the reality of kids waiting for months and months and even years for basic dental treatment, let's do something about it, not just in Illinois but across this country. This is fundamental and basic, good health, and we need to make sure it is included in all healthcare coverage.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, last week, we received remarkable news about a milestone in America's healthcare: A record 20 million Americans are now covered by health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

This is a sign of progress as we improve the quality of life and healthcare protections under President Biden.

Having quality, affordable healthcare coverage means having peace of mind if you get a diagnosis, an accident, or if you need access to care and are facing medical debt.

I know this story. I have been there. I was a law student at Georgetown when my wife and I were blessed with the birth of our first child, a baby girl born with a serious medical condition. As a young father without insurance, I can tell you, there is no greater feeling of helplessness.

That is why Democrats have been committed to expanding health insurance to millions more Americans and ensuring it contains protections for patients with preexisting conditions.

But even with these successes, there are serious gaps in America's healthcare system, gaps which are unimaginable until you learn specifically what I mean.

I want to focus on one of them: access to dental care.

I spent the August recess last year visiting small towns in Southern Illinois. I met with the new mayor of Carbondale, IL, Carolin Harvey.

I asked her: OK. You have a U.S. Senator in your office, Mayor. What is your ask? What do you want?

Her answer: pediatric dentistry, of all things. I couldn't imagine that. I thought it would be a sewer line or a street or something for law enforcement--pediatric dentistry. She said: Senator, we just don't have enough dentists for kids in Southern Illinois. In fact, there are 10 rural counties in the State that have only 1 dentist to serve their community. In Lawrence County, there is 1 dentist for 15,000 people. That ratio--a local ratio--is 11 times worse than the national average.

What is the result of a shortage of dentists, particularly for kids? Patients' conditions worsen as they face delays to getting an examination.

My office was recently contacted about a child in Southern Illinois who was found to have tooth decay in her 18-month checkup. The patient is covered by Medicaid, and her parents had a hard time finding a dentist who would even see her.

Imagine this for a minute as I tell you this story, that you are a father or mother of a child who is 18 months old and has tooth decay and pain. After nearly a year, the patient was finally treated for severe tooth decay, erosion of the upper incisor teeth, and a large tooth abscess, but her condition did not improve after multiple rounds of antibiotics so her dentist called around to find a specialist to see her.

They were told by the specialist that ``unfortunately, we have over 200 patients on our [waiting] list, so we really cannot help [her].'' This child is going to have to develop a much worse condition known as facial cellulitis, then she can be sent to an emergency room and then ``we can see her.''

Listen to what I just said. You have a child who is a year and a half old, who has already been treated by a dentist, who has complications, who is trying to find her way back to the dentist and is being told: Sorry. There is a waiting list here of 200 people. Get to the end of the line, and wait.

Perhaps, though, there is a way out. If this child's condition worsens or is complicated, then maybe we can qualify under a new code under Medicaid to finally see her and treat her. In other words, this toddler had to develop deep-tissue infection--putting her at risk of sepsis, jaw damage, and other life-threatening illnesses--to get her decayed teeth pulled.

Imagine that as a parent, would you. Think about that for a minute.

Her dentist called a specialist in a neighboring State. Thankfully, they were able to perform emergency surgery to remove the decayed teeth but not before risking life-threatening illnesses.

That is the reality for people in the United States of America and in the State of Illinois today. That is unacceptable. In fact, it is embarrassing. So what are we going to do about it in Washington, with all our money and all our power?

Thankfully, there is a Federal program that can help. It is called the National Health Service Corps. It provides a scholarship and loan repayment to dental, medical, and mental health providers who work in rural and urban areas in need. It is the primary Federal program intended to build a pipeline of healthcare providers and address shortages such as the one I just described to you. Nationwide, there are 20,000 professionals serving in the National Health Service Corps, treating 21 million patients.

But $310 million in mandatory funding for this program will expire at the end of this month. We cannot allow this to happen. Senator Marco Rubio--a Republican from Florida--and I have a bipartisan measure to extend this program and nearly triple its funding. It is supported by more than 65 leading medical organizations. They know the reality on the ground for poor people in America, particularly in rural areas and urban areas in need.

The Senate HELP Committee passed a major bipartisan package last fall that included significant new funding for this program. I urge my Republican colleagues to join and support it.

But there is a lot more we need to do. For example, in Illinois, only one-quarter of practicing dentists accepts Medicaid. Think about that. Only one-quarter of practicing dentists accepts Medicaid. Since so few dentists take Medicaid patients, it means that kids in Illinois, with private insurance, are six times more likely to get a dental appointment than those who have Medicaid. In other words, if you are poor, that child complaining of a toothache is just going to have to take it. That, unfortunately, in my State and in many States, is reality.

Low reimbursement rates and arbitrary practices by companies that administer dental benefits under Medicaid contribute to this. So I recently sent a letter to the three major insurance providers-- DentaQuest, Avesis, and Envolve--to understand their tactics and their corporate strategies and ensure they are not putting unnecessary barriers up for basic dental treatment.

I am also working with stakeholders to bring in Federal dollars to expand dental residency training programs, fund mobile clinics that drive into rural areas, and expand surgical capacity.

I might just say this as an aside. I am often asked the question: Why in the world do we treat dentistry as anything other than a medical specialty? It certainly is. If you have got a sore

tooth or a decayed tooth or a problem in your mouth, you want help, and you want it now; and you want a professional to provide it. They go through years and years of training. Yet, instead of being treated like a medical specialty like orthopedics or cardio, they are in a different category altogether. It makes no sense.

Today, I am announcing a new bill that I am introducing with Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas. Our bipartisan legislation will authorize funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to enhance public health activities to improve dental care across America. It will support education, data collection, sealant treatments in schools, water fluoridation efforts, the development of the dental workforce, and community outreach efforts, such as the distribution of toothbrushes--the basics--to new parents and children.

Illinois has not received funding for this important work in nearly 20 years due to a lack of funding. I want to change that. If we improve the health of Americans, especially kids, then we must invest in preventing cavities, tooth decay, and infections. We must also ensure that patients have access to treatment, regardless of their ZIP Codes.

I appreciate the partnership of my colleague Senator Marshall, and I will be working to pass this bipartisan legislation quickly.

I want to say, just in closing, to the mayor, Carolin Harvey of Carbondale, IL, that you shocked me when you suggested pediatric dentistry was your ask. It told me a lot about you, your heart, and your caring for kids. Now that we know the reality of kids waiting for months and months and even years for basic dental treatment, let's do something about it, not just in Illinois but across this country. This is fundamental and basic, good health, and we need to make sure it is included in all healthcare coverage.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, when is enough enough?

At the start of 2024, we find ourselves in another Presidential election cycle, and as we move closer to election day in November, we can expect political tensions to rise. But, as the new year begins, a rise in political violence threatens to overshadow the traditional Presidential process.

Across the country, at every level of government, we are experiencing a surge in violent threats against public officials and government workers. Some officials have been victims of swatting incidents, in which false 9-1-1 calls lead to law enforcement swarming the homes of targeted individuals. In other cases, officials have received death threats or bomb threats where they live or work, and in some tragic instances, violent threats have escalated into violent acts.

It should go without saying, but it is worth repeating: Political violence in furtherance of any cause--any cause--is unacceptable. But it is undeniable that the recent spike in violent threats and acts has one major source: the grievances of former President Trump.

Just over 3 years after President Trump called his supporters to Washington, DC, and directed them to this

Senate Chamber and Capitol Building, where they staged a violent insurrection, his calls for retribution against his perceived enemies continue on an almost daily basis. Recent victims have included the secretary of state in the State of Maine, the former speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, and the employees of the Georgia secretary of state's office--all of whom were targets of swatting and violent threats. These individuals were targeted for their roles in upholding the lawful result of the 2020 Presidential election or for their involvement in the upcoming election. Many election workers at lower levels have also been threatened, especially women and people of color.

Just this morning, POLITICO published an article about the fears and concerns of local election workers and the conspiracy theories and threats they face. These threats deter Americans from engaging in civic life or even seeking public office.

The recent rise in political violence has not just affected those who run for office or help to run our elections; judges, jurors, and officers of the court have also faced threats. Just last week, Justice Arthur Engoron--the New York State judge presiding over the former President's civil fraud trial--had his home swarmed by police after someone called in a fake bomb threat. This occurred hours after Trump took to his now favorite social media platform, Truth Social, and called Judge Engoron ``a Trump-hating judge.''

This came on the heels of similar swatting, targeting the homes of Jack Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan--the special prosecutor pursuing criminal charges against the former President for election interference and the judge overseeing the case. The former President has repeatedly attacked both of these public servants by name.

Last August, Judge Chutkan received a voice mail saying:

If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we're coming to kill

you, so tread lightly.

On Christmas Eve, Trump called Special Counsel Smith ``deranged'' and claimed he was one of President Biden's ``misfits and thugs.'' The very next day, the special counsel's home was targeted with a swatting call.

The justices of the State Supreme Courts of Colorado and Wisconsin, along with staff, jurors, and prosecutors, have also faced threats due to their involvement in the former President's legal case. All of these individuals have been targeted simply because they continue to fulfill their duties to uphold the law.

All the while, former President Trump has refused to condemn the actions of his supporters, and at times, he clearly encourages it. Yet we rarely hear any of our Republican colleagues criticize their de facto leader for his public threats of violence or his encouragement of his most extreme supporters.

Threats of violence and violence are antithetical to our democracy, whatever their political source. In a free country, there are countless ways for people to legitimately and peacefully react and respond to political events and outcomes with which they disagree. People can vote as they choose. They can encourage their fellow citizens to do likewise. They can organize and advocate whether by knocking on doors, speaking at rallies, or posting on social media. They can peaceably assemble and protest public officials and the policies they pursue.

In the United States, these kinds of political activities are not merely tolerated; they are encouraged, and they are protected by the Constitution and the force of law. But we cannot as a nation tolerate, let alone encourage, threats of political violence by anyone, including the former President of the United States.

The recent rise in political violence marks a renewed attempt to use violence and the threat of violence to intimidate public officials, election workers, and our fellow American voters.

Sadly, the specter of political violence is not new. In 1968--another Presidential election year, one marred by heinous acts of violence-- Robert Kennedy gave remarks the day after Martin Luther King was assassinated. He spoke about the mindless menace of violence in America, and he quoted Abraham Lincoln, who more than a century before wrote:

Among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the

ballot to the bullet; and [those] who take such appeal are

sure to lose their case, and pay the cost.

Today, I am calling on my colleagues in both political parties to publicly condemn the state of violence which is dominating in this country. We have come to accept it as commonplace. Shame on us in that regard. If this true democracy is to succeed, we all have to speak out against violence on both sides of the equation. We must stand together in opposing violence and threats of violence. Our democracy is strong, but it is only as strong as the people who participate in it, who protect it, and who serve it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined today, Senator Sanders be recognized to make a motion to discharge S. Res. 504; and that if the motion is made and upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the motion to discharge; further, that the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2872 ripen upon disposition of the motion to discharge.

For the information of the Senate, Senator Sanders had a flight delay and is still expected to make the motion to discharge his resolution and speak prior to this evening's votes. Senators should expect votes to start at approximately 6:45 p.m.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, over the holiday recess, the U.S. Senate and the people of Wisconsin experienced a profound loss: the passing of Herb Kohl.

I had the pleasure of serving with Herb in the Senate for 15 years. He was a tremendous Senator and an even better man. Born in Milwaukee to two Jewish immigrant parents, Herb went to school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and later earned a master's degree from Harvard University. He went on to serve in the Army Reserve.

In many ways, Herb's story is the American dream personified. A Midwestern boy from humble roots who teamed up with his father and brothers to grow a family business into an iconic retail chain, becoming a successful businessman and philanthropist in the process. Herb took what he learned from the world of business--hard work, integrity, and humility--and pivoted to politics. Getting his start in Wisconsin politics in the 1970s, he went on to chair the Wisconsin State Democratic Party. And in 1988, he ran for the U.S. Senate. Unsurprisingly to all of us who knew Herb, he was a beloved candidate, and he faithfully served the people of Wisconsin for four terms.

In his conduct and commitment to his constituents, Herb proved that the Midwest's reputation for kindness and loyalty does not stop at the doors of the Senate. He had a quiet manner about him, with little ego. In many ways, he was an anomaly. He put his head down, and he focused squarely on how he could improve the lives of those who entrusted him to serve.

Even with his success, Herb never forgot his roots and used every position he found himself in to give back to his beloved Wisconsin. In 1970, he was instrumental in bringing a professional baseball team to Milwaukee. When Milwaukee's professional basketball team, the Milwaukee Bucks, threatened to leave town, Herb purchased the team to ensure they remained in his hometown. When he saw educational need in his State, he founded the Herb Kohl Educational Foundation to provide scholarships and fellowships to students, teachers, and schools. When his alma mater found itself in need of a new athletic facility and arena, it was Herb's donation that helped bring it to life.

A fellow Midwesterner, Herb and I worked together on many issues. He was a colleague, a friend, and above all, the resident dairy expert. I can still recall when Herb retired in 2013, I quickly realized I had lost my most trusted adviser on all things dairy. It was important to his constituents, so it was important to him. And no one knew more than Herb.

Notably, we also served together on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where we worked to confirm fair and qualified judges and pass legislation that made this Nation more just and equitable. Specifically, in 2011, he cosponsored the DREAM Act, legislation that is very close to my heart.

I send my deepest condolences to Herb's family, friends, and constituents. With Herb's passing, we lost one of the very best of us. I am honored to have called Herb a friend, and I will miss him dearly.

Madam President, in a few short days, our Nation will honor the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

For many, it will be a day to envision a future in which America, as Dr. King dreamed, is ``free at last.'' For others, it will be a time to remember the ideals Dr. King fought so hard for, namely his dream for everyone in this country to finally receive the fair and equal treatment promised to them under the Constitution.

Today, we should honor Dr. King's legacy by continuing to fight to realize his dreams--and also recognize the brave people who stood alongside Dr. King at the foot of history's doorstep, like Memphis sanitation worker and civil rights activist Elmore Nickelberry.

Mr. Nickelberry was one of the last surviving Memphis sanitation workers who fought for better working conditions in 1968, and he marched with Dr. King during the sanitation workers' strike. He was a man of great integrity and a pillar within his community. When others wanted to give up and stop the strike, he said: ``Keep on marching, keep on doing the right thing. If they're doing the right thing, everything will be good. But keep the dream alive.''

Because of Mr. Nickelberry's bravery and determination, the Black Memphis sanitation workers received better working conditions and pay and were finally afforded rights equal to those of their White counterparts. Last week, Elmore Nickelberry took his last breath on this earth. But the legacy left behind by Mr. Nickelberry, Dr. King, and the rest of the visionary activists who fought for a freer, fairer, and more just America will stand the test of time.

The impact of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., on our Nation is, in many ways, immeasurable. Dr. King taught us that no change comes without hard work and determination. He used to say, ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.''

As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am committed to continuing the work to which Dr. King committed his life: the work of advancing justice and equality for all. We are moving toward that goal by continuing our efforts to bring balance to our Federal judiciary. Throughout America's history, our courts have too often been the venue in which justice is denied rather than delivered. If we want to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law, we need a Federal bench that looks like America. And, under President Biden, we are finally building that bench. We must continue to advance well-qualified judicial nominees who reflect the diversity of America.

Under President Biden's leadership, the Senate has confirmed more Black women to the Federal circuit courts than all prior Presidents combined, including the first-ever Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

We have also confirmed a historic number of Asian American, Latino, and LGBTQ+ judges, and we have confirmed more circuit judges with experience as public defenders than all prior Presidents combined. In the past couple of years, our Nation has made historic progress, both in rectifying the injustices of our past, and building Dr. King's ``Beloved Community.'' And that progress was made possible by my fellow Democratic Members of Congress who have advanced Dr. King's march for justice in every form: racial justice, social justice, and economic justice.

I would like to close by evoking the words of another great American and civil rights activist--my friend, the late John Lewis. A disciple of Dr. King, Congressman Lewis believed in the power of community, justice, and love. He is famously known for his belief that people should ``get in good trouble, necessary trouble'' to help redeem the soul of America.

Today, as we reflect on how we can honor Dr. King's memory and live by his legacy, I hope we can all commit to getting into the kind of ``good trouble'' that John Lewis urged, the kind of trouble that challenges our Nation to live up to its lofty ideals, the kind of trouble that is hard, and costly but ultimately brings us closer to realizing Dr. King's dream.

Mr. President, having experienced legislative efforts of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it would be a surprise to many people to learn that many Members come to the floor to address issues of personal importance to them, something that happened in their lives that motivates them to take up an issue, introduce a bill, try to create a new law.

That happened to me in the House of Representatives many, many years ago when I first confronted the tobacco issue. I lost my father to lung cancer when I was 14 years old, and it was a profound experience, as you might guess, in my life.

And I remembered what he went through in the last 100 days of his life, fighting lung cancer and, eventually, succumbing to it.

And so I took on the tobacco issue in the House of Representatives on a personal basis as well as a public basis, trying to reduce the power which the Big Tobacco lobby had in the House of Representatives. And when I arrived there in 1982, they were the most powerful lobby in Washington.

We were warned as new Members of Congress on both sides--Democratic and Republican--don't touch the tobacco issue. It is an issue that is very important for us to maintain our majority, and you shouldn't bring it up.

Well, I ignored that advice and introduced several ideas on reducing the power of the tobacco lobby on Capitol Hill. The one issue that I pursued with success had a profound impact on this country--much more than I ever imagined. I introduced the first bill, successful bill, in the House of Representatives to ban smoking on airplanes.

It seems so obvious today that it would be a fiction to suggest that there is a smoking and nonsmoking section

on an airplane. We know that those people who were smoking were generating secondhand smoke, which was dangerous as well.

Well, with an amazing bipartisan majority, we passed my bill to ban smoking on airplanes. It was taken up by Senator Frank Lautenberg here in the U.S. Senate successfully, signed into law, and the rest is history, as they say.

What we did not anticipate was that this law, in and of itself, was going to be a tipping point. People thought and said: Wait a minute, if secondhand smoke is dangerous in an airplane, why wouldn't it be dangerous in a bus? on a train? in an office? in a hospital? in a place of work? in a restaurant? And the next thing you know, we saw a dramatic change over the years in the attitude towards smoking.

New Members of Congress historically, before that was passed, would head to the stationery shop as soon as they were elected to buy an ashtray to put on the coffee table in their office for those visitors who wanted to smoke while they were meeting with the Senators and Congressmen. That is unthinkable today. I am not even sure they sell the ashtrays anymore. They used to be embossed with a big Congressional seal.

Things started changing across America, and one of the things that led to that change was the discussion of the impact of tobacco on children.

We knew that tobacco, with its chemical nicotine, was addictive. And we knew that kids, naturally, being told not to touch a tobacco product, started using them as soon as they could; and many of them developed an addiction even before they graduated from high school. So we started requiring warning labels and restricting retail sales to try to protect kids from this addiction.

It was an ongoing battle because the tobacco companies were powerful and profitable and had many friends in high places, particularly here in Washington. I continued that battle over the years in the House and in the Senate with some success, dramatically reducing the percentage of children who were using tobacco.

The tobacco companies knew that they were in trouble. That was their source of addicted people who, when they became adults, bought their products for the rest of their lives until they died from that addiction.

And so these tobacco companies started a new campaign. It wasn't based on tobacco but on the chemical nicotine and the addictive nature of it. And they created something called vaping and e-cigarettes. And who did they go after? Kids, of course.

They had fruit-flavored vaping devices that looked like they belong in a computer or in a school bag going off to grade school and high school. And these kids started buying them and using them; and so I switched my campaign not exclusively from tobacco but to vaping as their latest Big Tobacco product that was addicting children.

I have asked the Food and Drug Administration, through many administrations, to basically police this product as they would a tobacco product, and they have promised that they would. I come here today to make a report, one very good piece of news and one very bad piece of news about that effort.

First, I want to thank the Supreme Court which, on Monday, left in place a California law banning the sale of flavored cigarettes. That is great news for kids and communities of color who have been preyed upon by Big Tobacco's aggressive marketing with flavored products.

We know that flavors play a unique role in hooking new smokers because they mask the harsh taste of tobacco and turbocharge the addictiveness of nicotine.

In particular, we know that menthol cigarettes have been purposely targeted at Black communities for decades with heavy advertising, sponsorship of events, and free samples. It has contributed to the fact that Black adults in America are 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease and 50 percent more likely to die from a stroke compared to Whites.

There is a Federal proposal on the table now to prohibit the manufacturing and retail sale of menthol cigarettes. That rule would save an estimated 650,000 lives, including 255,000 Black Americans. It would eliminate the racial disparity in lung cancer deaths between Black and White Americans.

I know this President cares deeply about the toll of cancer. It has touched his family personally, as it has mine. If we want to make a difference in the health of Americans and set a legacy for future generations, then the administration must finalize this public health measure to end Big Tobacco's predatory promotion of menthol cigarettes. Lives hang in the balance. That is the good news out of California and the Supreme Court.

Here is the bad news. Robert Califf is the head of the Food and Drug Administration. Two years ago, he was approved by the Senate in a very close vote; it was 50 to 46. If two Senators had gone the other way, he would not be the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

He came to my office and made a plea that I vote for him. I was planning on voting against him. He ended up getting five Democrats voting against him and six Republicans who voted for him, and that made the difference in the final rollcall.

On the final rollcall, because he looked me in the eye in my office in this building and promised that he would take on the vaping interests, I voted for him. It has been a miserable disappointment to see what he has done with that office when it comes to this issue.

As the calendar turns to 2024 and the new year, I am afraid that it has not brought any change in the Food and Drug Administration's shameful, abysmal job of preventing tobacco companies from addicting our children.

On January 1, the Food and Drug Administration missed yet another court-imposed deadline to finish reviewing e-cigarette applications. Even after repeated delays, the FDA had told the U.S. district court for Maryland that it would finish reviewing e- cigarette applications by December 31, 2023. It failed. That deadline came and went.

The FDA is now 28 months past the original court-ordered deadline to complete this review. That is not only unacceptable, it is embarrassing.

Here is why that is a problem: The law is clear that no vaping or tobacco product can be put on the market without first proving-- proving--to the FDA that it is--listen--``appropriate for the protection of public health.''

In other words, the industry, the vaping industry, has the legal burden of proof to prove that their product will protect the public health. Vaping companies cannot do that. We know they can't. Yet thousands of products continue to flood store shelves and addict America's children without having met that bar of proof.

The FDA has the power and the responsibility to protect public health by enforcing this premarket review requirement, but it appears to be giving Big Tobacco a free pass day after day, week after week, month after month, despite court orders to the contrary.

While the FDA has missed a court-ordered deadline, it also failed to meet a statutory deadline for the regulation of synthetic nicotine products, an authority that the FDA asked us in Congress to provide. You see, vaping companies thought they found a loophole in the law by using nicotine that was synthesized in a lab, rather than derived from a tobacco leaf. They thought they could skirt FDA regulation by exploiting this ambiguity in the law.

The same FDA Commissioner I referenced earlier, Dr. Robert Califf, testified to the Senate: We have to close this loophole. He pleaded with us to close it, and we did.

Senators Collins, Murkowski, and several others joined me to lead a bipartisan effort to clarify FDA's jurisdiction over synthetic nicotine. The new law required the FDA to clear the market of all unauthorized synthetic nicotine products by July 13, 2022--18 months ago--and they have failed. After asking us for this authority, after our passing the law and having it signed by the President, they have ignored the law and the requirement to clear the shelves since 2022. Since then, FDA has failed to issue a single marketing denial for a synthetic nicotine vaping application.

Worse yet, e-cigarettes using synthetic nicotine are now the most popular tobacco products used by children. There are many examples of that.

Think about that for a moment. The FDA Commissioner comes here and says: My hands are tied. I cannot regulate e-vaping to protect kids because they are using synthetic nicotine and we are not sure the law covers it.

We change the law and tell them: Now you can proceed. Enforce this law that you have asked for, and do it 2 years ago to make sure these products are not on the shelves.

They ignore it. After calling for our passage of the bill, they ignore the reality, and the shelves are stocked with these e-cigarette synthetic nicotine products that kids are using across America.

The consequences for our children are devastating. According to the Surgeon General, e-cigarettes can damage lungs, heart, mental health, and parts of the brain that control attention and learning. Don't just take it from me. I recently received a letter from the Chicago Teachers Union. Here is what it said:

Teachers have noticed a growing frequency of disposable

vapes in our schools. These products come in colorful

packages and fruity, kid-friendly flavors that are pushed on

social media. . . . Some even look like school supplies.

And it is not just the big cities like Chicago. Last month, I also received a letter from the regional superintendent of schools for five of the rural areas, southernmost parts of Illinois: Alexander, Jackson, Perry, Pulaski, and Union Counties. They said:

While most young people view smoking as no longer cool,

they look at vaping differently . . . as being a ``healthy''

and cool alternative.

The FDA was given the tools to protect our kids and consistently failed to do it under Dr. Robert Califf, head of the FDA.

Here is what I want to make clear today: February 14 is the second anniversary of Robert Califf's approval by the U.S. Senate. By that date, by February 14, I expect his compliance and the compliance of the FDA with all of these court-ordered mandates which they have ignored for months and years. What is at stake? The health of our kids and their addiction. If Dr. Califf cannot exercise the authority of the FDA, it is time that we put somebody in who will.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) is necessarily absent.